M/s. Vertex Technosolutions Private Limited, Bangalore V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Cell- TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 2182/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8093 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S TAMIL SELVAN J BENGALURU
• Assessee Lawyers: MUKESH R
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; TDS
• Section: 234E; 200A; 201; 73; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO. ITA NO. A.Y. 1. 2175/BANG/2019 2014 - 15 2. 2176/BANG/2 019 2014 - 15 3. 2177/BANG/2019 2013 - 14 4. 217 8 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 5. 217 9 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 6. 21 80 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 7. 21 81 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 8. 21 82 /BANG/2019 2013 - 14 VERTEX TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD., # 402, 2 ND FLOOR, REGENCY ENCLAVE, MAGRATH ROAD, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AACCV 22 36Q VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD. UP. APPELLANT RESPONDENT AP PEL LANT BY : SHRI MUKESH R., CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. TAMIL SELVAN, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 13 .0 1.20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 22 . 0 1.20 20 ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 9 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE A BATCH OF 8 APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 8.8.2019 BY CIT(APPEALS)-10, BAN GALORE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (TDS) FOR VARIOUS QUARTERS IN FORM NO.24Q/26Q FOR FYS 2012-13 & 2013-14 (AYS 2013-14 TO 2014-15). THE STATEMENT WAS PROCESSED B Y CPC TDS, BENGALURU. THERE WAS A DELAY IN FILING THE ABOVE T DS STATEMENT AND THEREFORE THE AO BY INTIMATION U/S. 200A OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] LEVIED LATE FEE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT, IN APPE ALS PERTAINING TO FILING OF FORM NO.24Q IN Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4 AND FILING OF FORM NO .26Q IN Q-4 OF AY 2013-14 AND FILING OF FORM NO.24Q FOR Q-1 RELATING TO AY 2014-14. IN RESPECT OF FILING OF FORM NO.26Q, Q-1 FOR AY 2014-1 5 AND Q-2 & Q-3 FOR AY 2013-14, THE LEVY OF LATE FEE U/S.234E WAS PASSED U /S.200A READ WITH SEC.154 OF THE ACT THE DETAILS OF THE LATE FEE SO LEVIED WAS AS FOLLOWS:- FY FORM NO. Q1 (RS.) Q2 (RS.) Q3 (RS.) Q4 (RS.) TOTAL (RS.) 2012-13 24Q 26Q 47,800/ - 2,800/- 29,400/ - 5,600/- 5,400/ - 1,200/- 82,600/ - 9,600/- 2013-14 24Q 26Q 17,600/- 10,800/- - - - - . - 17,600/- 10,800/- 3. UNDER SEC.234E OF THE ACT, IF THERE IS A DELAY I N FILING STATEMENT OF TDS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME THEN THE PERSON RESP ONSIBLE FOR MAKING PAYMENT AND FILING RETURN OF TDS IS LIABLE TO PAY B Y WAY OF FEE A SUM OF RS.200/- PER DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES . SECTION 234E OF THE ACT INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.7.2 012. READS AS FOLLOWS:- ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 9 FEE FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING STATEMENTS. 234E. (1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT, WHERE A PERSON FAILS TO DELIVER OR CAUSE TO BE DELIVERED A STATEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 2 00 OR THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C, HE SHAL L BE LIABLE TO PAY, BY WAY OF FEE, A SUM OF TWO HUNDRED RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH THE FAILURE CONTINUES. (2) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE OR COLLECTIBLE, AS THE CASE MAY BE. (3) THE AMOUNT OF FEE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL BE PAID BEFORE DELIVERING OR CAUSING TO BE DELIVERED A STAT EMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR T HE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 OR TH E PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 206C WHICH IS TO BE DELIVERE D OR CAUSED TO BE DELIVERED FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR TAX COLL ECTED AT SOURCE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY , 2012. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION BEFOR E CIT(A) WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.7.2012. SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IS A PRO VISION WHICH DEALS WITH HOW A RETURN OF TDS FILED U/S.200(3) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE PROCESSED AND IT READS AS FOLLOWS:- PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE . 200A. (1) WHERE A STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE O R A CORRECTION STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY A PERSON DEDUCTING ANY S UM (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS DEDUCTOR) UNDER SECT ION 200, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNE R, NAMELY: (A) THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE COM PUTED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY: ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 9 ( I ) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE STATEMENT; OR ( II ) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMENT; ( B ) THE INTEREST, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED ON THE B ASIS OF THE SUMS DEDUCTIBLE AS COMPUTED IN THE STATEMENT; ( C ) THE FEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234E; ( D ) THE SUM PAYABLE BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR SHALL BE DETERMINED AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUNT COMPUTED UNDER CLAUSE ( B ) AND CLAUSE ( C ) AGAINST ANY AMOUNT PAID UNDER SECTION 200 OR SECTION 201 OR SECTION 234E AN D ANY AMOUNT PAID OTHERWISE BY WAY OF TAX OR INTEREST OR FEE; ( E ) AN INTIMATION SHALL BE PREPARED OR GENERATED AND SENT TO THE DEDUCTOR SPECIFYING THE SUM DETERMINED TO BE PAYABL E BY, OR THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO, HIM UNDER CLAUSE ( D ); AND ( F ) THE AMOUNT OF REFUND DUE TO THE DEDUCTOR IN PURS UANCE OF THE DETERMINATION UNDER CLAUSE ( D ) SHALL BE GRANTED TO THE DEDUCTOR: PROVIDED THAT NO INTIMATION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE SENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIA L YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, 'AN INCORRE CT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE STATEMEN T' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN THE STATEMENT ( I ) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOTHER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH STATEMENT; ( II ) IN RESPECT OF RATE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE , WHERE SUCH RATE IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TH IS ACT. (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCESSING OF STATEMENTS UN DER SUB-SECTION (1), THE BOARD MAY MAKE A SCHEME FOR CENTRALISED PROCESS ING OF STATEMENTS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO EXPEDITIOUSLY DETERMIN E THE TAX PAYABLE BY, OR THE REFUND DUE TO, THE DEDUCTOR AS REQUIRED UNDER THE SAID SUB- SECTION. ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 9 5. CLAUSE (C) TO (F) OF SECTION 200A(1) WAS SUBSTIT UTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 1.6.2015. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AO COULD LEVY FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT WHILE PROCESSING A RETURN OF TD S FILED U/S.200(3) OF THE ACT ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.200A(1) (C), (D) & (F) OF THE ACT AND THOSE PROVISIONS CAME INTO FORCE ONLY FROM 1.6. 2015 AND THEREFORE THE AUTHORITY ISSUING INTIMATION U/S. 200A OF THE ACT W HILE PROCESSING RETURN OF TDS FILED U/S.200(3) OF THE ACT, COULD NOT LEVY FEE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF STATEMENT OF TDS FILED PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 . THE ASSESSEE, THUS, CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF CHARGING OF FEE U/S. 234 E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF FATEHRAJ SINGHVI V. UOI [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 WHEREIN THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT AMENDMEN T MADE U/S. 200A PROVIDING THAT FEE U/S. 234E OF THE ACT COULD BE CO MPUTED AT THE TIME OF PROCESSING OF RETURN AND ISSUE OF INTIMATION HAS CO ME INTO EFFECT ONLY FROM 1.6.2015 AND HAD ONLY PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THEREF ORE, NO COMPUTATION OF FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT FOR DELAYED FILING OF RETUR N OF TDS WHILE PROCESSING A RETURN OF TDS U/S.234E OF THE ACT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO 1.6.201 5. 6. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE BELATED AND THE FOLLOWING WAS THE DELAY IN FILING A PPEAL BEFORE HIM:- FY ORDER PASSED DATE DATE OF FILING NO. OF DAYS DELAY 2012-13 08.11.2013 13.03.2019 1921 DAYS 14.06.2014 13.03.2019 1703 DAYS 29.08.2016 13.03.2019 895 DAYS 14.11.2013 13.03.2019 1916 DAYS 14.11.2013 14.03.2019 1917 DAYS 21.08.2014 14.03.2019 1636 DAYS 2013-14 10.11.2013 13.03.2019 1919 DAYS 28.11.2013 13.03.2019 1902 DAYS ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 9 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF D ELAY IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE CIT(A). THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WAS THAT THERE WERE MANY OPPOSING JUD GMENTS ON WHETHER LATE FILING FEE CAN BE LEVIED U/S.234E OR NOT VIZ., THAT OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SIBIA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.90/ASR/2015 ORDER DATED 9.6.2015 HOLDING THAT WITHOUT ENABLING PROVISION LIKE U/S.200A(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, THERE CA NNOT BE LEVY OF LATE FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT AND CHENNAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S.NEELAGIRIS TEXTILES VS. DCIT ITA NO.795 TO 797/MDS/2015 ORDER DATED 10.7.2015 TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW. IT WAS ONLY LATER I.E., ON 26.8.2016, THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATERAJ SINGHVI (SUPRA) TOOK THE VIEW THAT WITHOUT ENABLING PROVISION LIKE U/S.200A(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, WHICH ENABLING PROVISIONS CAME INTO EFFECT ONLY FROM 1.6. 2015, THERE CANNOT BE LEVY OF LATE FEE U/S.234E OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS SMALL AND ALL AFFAIRS HAD TO BE LOOKED AFTER BY THE ASSESSEE AS PROPRIETOR. FURTHER THE TDS COMPLIANCE ARE WEB BAS ED AND SYSTEM DRIVEN AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO LONG INTO THE TRACES AND REPLY TO THE NOTICES/ORDERS WITHIN STIPULATED TIME. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE TDS ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPE AL BEFORE CIT(A) WERE NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT AFTER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FATHERAJ SINGHVI (SUPRA) , HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT NO LATE FEE WILL BE LEVIED U/S.234-E OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 AS THE ENABLING PROVISIONS U/S.200A OF THE ACT, WERE INTRO DUCED ONLY FROM 1.6.2015. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER ON 4.2.2019 RECEIVE D A DEMAND NOTICE FOR LATE FEE U/S.234-E OF THE ACT DATED 30.1.2019. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED HIS AUDITOR AND THEY INFORMED THAT THE R EMEDY WAS TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS U/S.200A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE AND THE DELAY WAS DUE TO BONAFIDE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RE LIANCE ON DECISION OF ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 9 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANDRAMANI (TS 5109-SC-1996-O) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIEN T CAUSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WITH PRAGMATISM AND IN A JUSTICE ORIENTED APPROACH RATHER THAN TECHNICALLY AND CMJ FOUNDATION VS. PRINCIPAL CIT (TS 6571-ITAT-2019(GAUHATI)-O) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & OTHERS AIR 1987 1353 (SC) WHEREIN PRINCIPLES REGARDING CONDONATION OF DELAY HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 8. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WA S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARGINAL DELAY AND INORDINATE DELAY AND MAD E REFERENCE TO A DECISION OF ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF T. KRISHNA VS. ACIT(IT(SS)A.NO.23 & 25/HYD/2011) AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD EXPLAIN THE DELAY AS ONE THAT OCCURRED DUE TO CIRCU MSTANCES BEYOND HIS CONTROL. HE ALSO REFERRED TO DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMALAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LTD. AIR 1962 SC 361 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT DELAY CAUSED WHICH BY DUE CARE AND ATTENTION C OULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED CANNOT BE SAID TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE. HE ALSO REFERRED TO DECISIONS WHERE DELAY WAS NOT CONDONED FOR THE REAS ON THAT THE CONDUCT AND NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE EXISTED FOR THE DELA Y IN FILING APPEAL. HE HELD THAT THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ROUTINE EXPLANATION WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE OR SUFFICIEN T CAUSE. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED STAND OF THE ASSESSEE AS PUT FO RTH BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT WHEN THE LEVY OF FEE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO THAT EX TENT THE LEVY ITSELF IS ILLEGAL ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 9 AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WH ICH IS ONLY TECHNICAL SHOULD BE CONDONED. 10. THE LEARNED DR REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVE NUE AS REFLECTED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED DR AND ALSO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AN INTIMA TION U/S.200A OF THE ACT BECAME AN APPEALABLE ORDER U/S.246A OF THE ACT, ONL Y CONSEQUENT TO AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2015 W.E.F. 1.6.2015. PRIOR TO THE SAID DATE AN INTIMATION U/S.200A WAS NOT APPEALABLE. AT THE OUTSET, WE OBSERVE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF MST. KATIJI (SUPRA), HAS EXPLAINED THE PRINCIPLES THAT NEED TO BE KEPT IN MI ND WHILE CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE HONBLE A PEX COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THAT SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE SHOULD PREVAIL OVER TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE COURT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY LODGING THE APPEAL LATE. THE COURT HA S ALSO EXPLAINED THAT EVERY DAYS DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED DOES NOT MEAN T HAT A PEDANTIC APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE DOCTRINE MUST BE APPL IED IN A RATIONAL COMMON SENSE AND PRAGMATIC MANNER. THE ITAT HYDERAB AD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MSV IT SOLUTIONS LTD. VS. ITO, WARD 16(4) ITA NOS. 177 & 178/HYD/2018 ORDER DATED 26.10.2018 WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FACTS NOTICING THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL REMEDY PRIOR TO 1.6.2015 AG AINST AN INTIMATION U/S.200A OF THE ACT, THE HYDERABAD BENCH CONDONED D ELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). 12. CONSIDERING THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND KEEPING IN MIND THAT TECHNICALITIES SHOUL D NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF RENDERING SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS DESERVES TO BE CONDONED. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET AS IDE AND THE ISSUE ON ITA NO.2175 TO 2182/BANG/2019 PAGE 9 OF 9 MERITS IS REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WITH DU E OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( A.K.GARODIA ) ( N V VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND JANUARY, 2020. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.